Yes and note the difference in clothing (summer/winter).
North Korea Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter FORBIN
- Start date
-
- Tags
- north korea
therefore it can be hypothesized that the others are not recent either, and that the construction works may be even more advanced today.
It wouldn't be the first time North Korea surprised us
This ship will probably serve two purposes:
- Strategic air defense: If equipped with the Pongae-5/6 or Byeoljji-1-2, it could provide a long-range, high-altitude air defense umbrella for the North Korean fleet, which is severely under-defensed and vulnerable to US-ROK air power - especially now when they are building their naval nuclear assets. And North Korea has discussed shooting down US spy planes with an anti-aircraft warship, so it would be useful for that scenario as well.
- Nuclear deterrence: If equipped with VLS to launch cruise missiles, well... a ship that can carry 16-32 launch tubes equipped with nuclear-capable cruise missiles would be very scary if all launched at once.
?
Also, air force won't struggle much to sink a single air defense frigate(or destroyer, for that matter).
Just as scary, much harder to sink.
There's no such thing as North Korean fleet.
Also, air force won't struggle much to sink a single air defense frigate(or destroyer, for that matter).
You can hide same tubes in a forest without frigate attached.
Just as scary, much harder to sink.
Navy, yes.
That's why I said "they will need to be built in large numbers" and "each ship will need a lot of escorts".
And if the Navy also had its own nuclear asset, that would further enhance the survivability of the nuclear deterrent. This complicates and costs preemptive efforts even more: previously, you could just focus your expertise on destroying missile bunkers and hunting down TELs. Now, you still have to destroy bunkers and TELs, but you also have to hunt down missile-carrying surface ships, missile-carrying submarines, and even missile-carrying aircrafts. They are all scattered, well-protected, and highly camouflaged/lethal.
A strong navy, equipped with new and better equipment, and with more budgets will also ensure the loyalty and dedication of naval leaders and officers, who have often been put behind other priorities throughout history.
To supplement my argument, let me quote The Diplomat:
With all due respect, DPRK is neither South Korea nor China. This ship won't be built in dozens.
Also, surface ships by themselves aren't all that resilient since early WW2. Ships are ultimately exposed beings, unless they can hide in wastness of the ocean.
And this is almost impossible against an opponent in full, uncontested control of air and space.
I don't see it. Surface ship is easily trackable and very vulnerable, both within the base and at sea.
All DPRK opponents are much better prepared to take out a surface ship than ground solutions.
This is not a deterrent, it's a frigate, and it is needed first and foremost for frigate tasks. Which include ensuring that the much more viable submarine deterrent works.
If Korean frigate strike is worth something, it's some potential to deter remote weak nations from boarding DPRK ships for big brother. I.e. conventional 3rd party threat, not nuclear. In immediate vicinity of Peninsula, I personally struggle to see any use for those weapons.
Well they now got 5 workable ICBM designs besides the plethora of other new systems that have been developed. I wouldn't take them lightly
Yes, but to a reasonable degree.
Several frigates such frigates before 2035, and 2-3 before 2030 at most?
This one is still not even in water, and it's almost 2025.
The shipyard and the ship itself have been observed to be under construction since May.
Now it's near the New Year, and we see the hull of the ship is almost complete. I think that progress is very fast.
Give them another year or two to install the necessary equipment on the ship and voila! We would see 1 or 2 ships launched by at least 2026 — if North Korea's claims last year are true.